I'm not a lawyer. But I know that a burden of proof is required,“beyond a reasonable doubt,” of the prosecution. That is: We are “innocent until proven guilty.”
The constitutional purview of the courts includes:
. . .
Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; . . .
Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
. . .
When Bush, Cheney and the rest are tried for war crimes like torture, or treasons such as illegal wiretaps that constitute making war against the American People, what evidence, precedents or constitutional prescriptions would the prosecution likely bring to the trial to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, presuming that there will be no “confession in open court,” as the constitution demands in lieu of facts proven by the accuser?
What arguments could accusers bring to prove that President Obama is not a “natural born Citizen?” We know he may not be forced to testify against himself.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Comments (12)
I think it would be worth the perjury charges to take Obama to court with a very good counterfeit of the original LFBC and make claim as to it's being valid and accurate. Then make Obama and his lawyers prove it is not...make them bring theirs and prove otherwise.
Perjury charges are not that serious and it would be worth a shot to get his sorry ass out of there.
The first response above is advocating illegal and constitutionally subversive activity. To subvert the burden of proof requirement is to challenge the constitution itself.
Is there no response to the Bush-Cheney war crimes issue?
It is OK for the president but not for us? I am only using the constitution as Obama does..find a loop hole and jump through it...right?
The Obama and Cheney issue is a none issue with me because I haven't seen proof of any wrong doing yet...just ya'll hug-a-thugs crying over spilt water. I find it hard to say anything against them doing what they did when it happened with the backing of our senate and congress both...they all agreed...ya gonna hang them all?
Loopholes v Logical Absurdities
Ignore suborning witnesses to perjury and tampering with evidence.
Ignore cruel and unusual punishment and other constitutional violations.
Use the Just us system to pursue political ends.
Project those and all of your crimes onto your opponents.
What a curious logic!
Can we go back to the Clinton years and expose his use of rendition ?
I believe that I would be using the laws set out before me to gain the hidden truth...that would make me a patriot. I would be doing the constitution justice by getting to the truth by burdon of proof...I would just flip it in my favor...it happens every day and you know it.
If you know your law very well, this really wouldn't be perjury unless they could prove I it intentionally...(honestly I thought it was real and that I got it from a good source)they would have hell trying to prove what I thought was right or wrong...right? So I use my rights guarded by the constitution again...Obama would be proud of this kinda back door law practice wouldn't he. I don't believe I would even have to give up my source for the getting the document either because of other constitutionally guarded rights.
If it was just for my personal gain then I wouldn't condone it...but it is a legal move that could be done if planned out properly. Hmmm?
Sure, but whether we move forward or back, first things first. The most immediate ills must be addressed. We must face them that are closest no matter the direction we look.
"To brainstorm for the good of America, we must sometimes imagine what it would be like in a real life scenario, where we are required to examine behaviors in light of the constitution and laws"..
That is what I just did for ya. Next please.
Obama and his cronies are trashing the law every second. History is history, the present is now!
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".
“this really wouldn't be perjury unless they could prove I it”
That's more evidence of the crime committed at this website this morning. No doubt the Justice department is this moment hacking into computers and intercepting emails to gather more.
Not that it's necessary. The transgression is not hypothetical. Posts that have suborned to perjury and advocated, perhaps conspiratorially, tampering with evidence are sufficient evidence of the crime.
Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really out to get you!
Take it away kids. I'm bored with this childishness.
You act like I am taking Odumbo to court! And now you are mad that I gave you a very real approach of how to work within the laws that we have to achieve the goal of justice...what a loon you are.
I also quoted back to you what you asked for...I think you must not have really wanted that after all...I have noticed that most of your kind seem to not accept that very well.
Why are you not so compassionate about getting the truth as out of Obumbles as you are about giving rights to terrorist? You go after Bush and Cheney like they were acting on their own but let obigears off just like you were working for MSNBC or CNN or something?
Where did your sense of right and wrong go now...I love it when I can flip the script and piss ya'll off. You see, I am not getting mad at Obama for using the law that says he doesn't have to give proof to us of anything...so don't get mad at me when I say I could make him prove what I want.
And quit acting so childish about being shown how loop holes work...it only diminishes your stance even more.
Democracy:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."
A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.
Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:
an executive and
a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
Difference between Democracy and Republic, in brief:
Democracy:
a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences
Republic
a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.
b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.
Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.
The difference between Republic and Righteous Republic is that in the Republic the Government rules according to the law set up by men, in the Righteous Republic the law is the Law of God. Only in the Righteous Republic it can truly be said "One nation under God" for it is governed under commandments of the only One True God and there is no pluralism of religions.
Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.
Mobocracy: 1. Political control by a mob. 2. The mass of common people as the source of political control.